This week’s Newsweek cover features a brilliant article by Indian American (and former Neocon) Fareed Zakaria titled, “Beyond Bush.” I wonder out-loud if Zakaria is a “former” Neocon because, reading this article, he sounds downright, dare I say it, “progressive.” Check it:
In the fall of 1982, I arrived in the United States as an 18-year-old student from India. The country was in rough shape. That December unemployment hit 10.8 percent, higher than at any point since World War II. Interest rates hovered around 15 percent. Abroad, the United States was still reeling from Vietnam and Watergate. The Soviet Union was on a roll, expanding its influence from Afghanistan to Angola to Central America. That June, Israel invaded Lebanon, making a tense situation in the Middle East even more volatileToday, by almost all objective measures, the United States sits on top of the world. But the atmosphere in Washington could not be more different from 1982. We have become a nation consumed by fear, worried about terrorists and rogue nations, Muslims and Mexicans, foreign companies and free trade, immigrants and international organizations. The strongest nation in the history of the world, we see ourselves besieged and overwhelmed. While the Bush administration has contributed mightily to this state of affairs, at this point it has reversed itself on many of its most egregious policies–from global warming to North Korea to Iraq…
In a global survey released last week, most countries polled believed that China would act more responsibly in the world than the United States. How does a Leninist dictatorship come across more sympathetically than the oldest constitutional democracy in the world? Some of this is, of course, the burden of being the biggest. But the United States has been the richest and most powerful nation in the world for almost a century, and for much of this period it was respected, admired and occasionally even loved. The problem today is not that America is too strong but that it is seen as too arrogant, uncaring and insensitive. Countries around the world believe that the United States, obsessed with its own notions of terrorism, has stopped listening to the rest of the world. [Link]
<
p>Fareed uses the next eight pages to just break this mother down. Any of you who have been watching the so-called primary “debates” thus far will have witnessed that which Zakaria points out next. The Republicans try to scare us and the Democrats try to prove they are as tough as Republicans. Fear, fear, fear:
More troubling than any of Bush’s rhetoric is that of the Republicans who wish to succeed him. “They hate you!” says Rudy Giuliani in his new role as fearmonger in chief, relentlessly reminding audiences of all the nasty people out there. “They don’t want you to be in this college!” he recently warned an audience at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta. “Or you, or you, or you,” he said, reportedly jabbing his finger at students. In the first Republican debate he warned, “We are facing an enemy that is planning all over this world, and it turns out planning inside our country, to come here and kill us.” On the campaign trail, Giuliani plays a man exasperated by the inability of Americans to see the danger staring them in the face. “This is reality, ma’am,” he told a startled woman at Oglethorpe. “You’ve got to clear your head…”The competition to be the tough guy is producing new policy ideas, all right–ones that range from bad to insane. Romney, who bills himself as the smart, worldly manager, recently explained that while “some people have said we ought to close Guantánamo, my view is we ought to double [the size of] Guantánamo.” In fact, Romney should recognize that Guantánamo does not face space constraints. The reason that President Bush wants to close it down–and it is he who has expressed that desire–is that it is an unworkable legal mess with enormous strategic, political and moral costs. In a real war you hold prisoners of war until the end of hostilities. When does that happen in the war on terror? Does Romney propose that the United States keep an ever-growing population of suspects in jail indefinitely without trials as part of a new American system of justice?… [Link]
I remember well this next moment from the first Democratic debate. Obama had it right at first and then turned into a sheep:
In the South Carolina presidential debate, when candidates were asked how they would respond to another terror strike, they promptly vowed to attack, retaliate and blast the hell out of, well, somebody. Barack Obama, the only one to answer differently, quickly realized his political vulnerability and dutifully threatened retaliation as well. After the debate, his opponents leaked furiously that his original response proved he didn’t have the fortitude to be president.<
p>In fact, Obama’s initial response was the right one. He said that the first thing he would do was make sure that the emergency response was effective, then ensure we had the best intelligence possible to figure out who had caused the attack, and then move with allies to dismantle the network responsible.
We will never be able to prevent a small group of misfits from planning some terrible act of terror. No matter how far-seeing and competent our intelligence and law-enforcement officials, people will always be able to slip through the cracks in a large, open and diverse country. The real test of American leadership is not whether we can make 100 percent sure we prevent the attack, but rather how we respond to it. [Link]
<
p>Don’t get me wrong, I’m not drinking the whole glass of this Kool-aid. It is easy for people like Zakaria to argue a position well, but let’s not forget that he was one of the intellectuals in favor of this “war on terror” in the first place. Like a pool of quicksand this “war” keeps getting worse for us when we place fear above all other emotions in deliberating the future of our country:
The atmosphere of fear and panic we are currently engendering is likely to produce the opposite effect. Were there to be another attack, politicians would fulfill their pledges to strike back, against someone. A retaliatory strike would be appropriate and important–if you could hit the right targets. But what if the culprits were based in Hamburg or Madrid or Trenton? It is far more likely that a future attack will come from countries that are unknowingly and involuntarily sheltering terrorists. Are we going to bomb Britain and Spain because they housed terror cells?
The other likely effect of another terror attack would be an increase in the restrictions on movement, privacy and civil liberties that have already imposed huge economic, political and moral costs on America. The process of screening passengers at airports, which costs nearly $5 billion a year, gets more cumbersome every year as new potential “risks” are discovered. The visa system, which has already become restrictive and forbidding, will get more so every time one thug is let in. [Link]
In the meantime, rather than simply be angry at current policies, we can all start asking ourselves and our candidates what we want to do next. Do we want a future where we prosecute children or a future where we are admired in the world again? As this house of cards folds I hope we all challenge our candidates into acting with vision instead of out of fear Most importantly, let’s start to get more involved in this election cycle. I have been mostly sitting on the sidelines because I thought it was way to early to be paying attention to this circus. It isn’t too early to start educating ourselves on the issues though.
Except that A. Most Americans agree with him,
So what? Just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t make it right. Or was the Earth flat until the sixteenth century?
and B. His wife is Mexican American.
Again so what? Strom Thurmond had a black mistress and daughter, but he was still one of the most odious racists in modern American politics.
One other note I’d love to put here is that for those of you who haven’t read it, should now: “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis. It’s a book about a potential American descent into fascism.
Here’s an article that talks about the book. The book is about the rise of a down-home simple-talking Southerner who becomes a President. He does this by attacking the liberal media, intellectuals, and the like, while collecting large contributions from businesses. Once President he appoints his friends to office and puts lawyers no one knows into the Supreme Court, and rails against other countries, exploiting American’s existential fears, including immigration.
Mind you, the book was written in 1935, but the parallels to today are just chilling.
Some good news for the people who don’t get CNN. Lou Dobbs will now do some reports for the The Early Show on CBS.
In response to Yo Dad #15, you’re absolutely right when you say that noone takes the US seriously anymore. The US has lost its credibility as a ‘real’ power, one that at one point seemed to be a balancing force in the world. I now live in Europe and I experience everyday the real disappointment Europeans have in the US. They are let down by the hero that didn’t live up what he was supposed to. I don’t think this is necessarily bad in the global sense, may be this will give room for less of a pyramid structure. I think what astounds most people out here is how the politicians pander to the lowest common denominator, with only ballots in their eyes, not a real vision of what would better the country. It’s really depressing how the media circus can sidestep all that’s important and even once-respected newspapers can become mere vehicles of propaganda. What’s important, as Yo Dad points out, is participation, involvement at the grass-roots level. Discussion, real discussion about important issues, to get the voice heard. We can learn from the past.
In response to Ardy #27: Please, even Zarkosy seems left of the Democrats ! Even more so with Bernard Koushner as Foreign Affairs minister.
The quality of leaders in American politics is pathetic. They talk like 7th graders with loads of hyperbole, If you compare them with British politicians, you would know the difference. I watched Democratic debate on CNN and I couldn’t stop myself from laughing out loud.
if you read audacity of hope, or BO’s speech at the chicago council of global affairs, it seems zakaria’s just re-hashing obama.
you’re right indianguy. Bush has given us more laughs, if you ignore the horror he has caused, than anybody. E. Howard Hunt recently released a tape of father, Howard Hunt, confessing during his last days, to involvement with the presidential assassination of 1963. One of the major conspirators was LBJ (1963-1968), a crafty and ruthless Texan (the worse kind). In spite of powerful evidence to support what the dying Hunt reveals, mainstream media has treated this story like a red-headed step-child. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt
Reason: nobody wants the U.S. to be seen as using the methods of just another banana republic. Many of the actors are still alive, or else their intellectual descendants are still alive. And Eisenhower warned: beware the military industrial complex. An economy that depends on weapon making will depend on war.
British Politicians have a skill of saying “we F**ked up†in no less then 20,000 words, in the hope they baffle you, especially this labour government. All hail the kings of spin.
Question, how much does the war on terror play on people’s mind when voting?
Of the dems John Edward as a white man statistically has the best chance of being President vs Hilary or Obama- ( i wish it were not true)- so should’nt we be paying more attention to his stand? ( always assuming the Dems win the White house ,of course)
Like it or not, this is the man who will most likely be the next President of the United States.
Hearts are hardening across much of white America. They are yearning for just such a hard-nosed leader. Giuliani will bring in a good chunk of the white ethnic vote from the North-East and the Midwest: italians, irish, poles etc. who may normally vote democratic. The red state evangelicals are already in his pocket, despite his lapsed catholicism, his liberal social stance on gays and abortion, his less than exemplary personal life etc. They are hoping that he will do to the muslim threat what they credit Reagan for doing to the Soviet threat: destroy it completely.
@Camille:
Iraq during Clinton’s time Iraq was not a battle front on the “War on Terror”. The post Gulf War I plan was to “contain” Saddam. The Clinton administrations bunglings in dealing with Bin Laden who was well known by then to be the foremost terrorist heading a jihad against the US was a separate chapter:
And if Clinton and his advisors are so proud of their record in fighting terrorism, why is his National Security advisor Sandy Berger indicted on charges of destroying documents relating to the Clinton Administration’s record on terrorism, 5 years after leaving the White House:
The best anti-terror strategy Clinton (and Berger) could come up with was lobbing a few badly aimed Cruise missiles at Afghanistan after the African embassy bombings when Clinton had his brains caught in his zipper during the Lewinsky incident. The Clinton Administration’s 8 years in office was book ended by the first WTC bombing (Feb 1993) and the USS Cole (Oct 2000). In almost 8 years of attacks what cohesive and better plan did they come up with ?
Its nothing unique to Labour government, Bush Administration did that to. Words like WMD, Mushroom cloud, Democracy, Freedom, Liberty were used so effectively to gain support of American people.
my cardinal rules of being a politician are.. 1. Don’t look like a fool 2. Make fool of others (others being voters) Tony Blair and his labour party are really good at following these rules. But in case of Bush and his Republican party..they fool people, while looking like fools.
There is nothing very insightful or original in Zakaria’s article. It is just the sort of wishy washy nonsense many americans are getting tired of. Written by a colored man with an alien face and a muslim name, who immigrated from an impoverished country americans tend to be contemptuous of, it can only harden their hearts further. Who do you think they will trust, an immigrant muslim who says:
or one of their own heroes, Giuliani, who confirms their worst fears:
There have been a number of planned terrorist attacks by domestic muslims that have been thwarted, including the recent one targeting JFK Airport. There have also been a number of individual acts of terror by american muslims that have resulted in american deaths. Which makes Zakaria look like a dangerous liar to paranoid americans; and makes Giuliani look like the man of the hour.
The language and semiotics surrounding the entire “terror” issue are what I find most fascinating (and disturbing). The constant references to “war” on terror, or “the conflict” in Iraq–those situations carry far more weight when they’re not posited as (for example, in the case of Iraq), an “invasion” or “attack” (which really, it kind of is). I remember arguing with a fuck-buddy of all people, in bed one night, that while democracy is certainly an admirable goal (in an abstract notion, and quite frankly, I still have my own issues with the “one size fits all” approach that people seem to take), it can’t be imposed by the invasion of another country, or by force. There are regions and parts of the world (including my own) that simply aren’t ready for democracy, and what they need are benevolent despots. My favourite take on the whole democracy thing comes from that virtuoso of literature, Terry Pratchett, who describes the “Tyrant” of a fictional country as having brought about the sort of democracy that is “one man, one vote. He was the man, he was the vote”.
I don’t mean to threadjack but I have a question for the political people on here. Did anyone see the faith politics special that was on CNN yesterday? I notice that one of the politicians was talking about how the US is not a cristian nation and that it is multireligous. He then went on to list certain religions but he left out hinduism. And this is not the first time a politician has done this. I remember watching another special on MTV with a politician who listed religions and again left out hindhuism. Why do they do this? And it was weird yesterday because he mentioned judaism, islam, then he said and if you are.. (like he was about to say hindhuism but before he finished the sentence he changed the subject — and that made it even more insulting!) Why do they do this? I think hindhuism is not getting the respect it deserves politically.
and I am pissed off that atheism never get mentioned, unless as a pejorative!
Actually, I am not sure why you are so pissed off. I was watching Color Splash with David Bromstad on HGTV and he wore a tee-shirt with Durga or Lakshmi on it – and guess what, I bet more people watched him than the segment you did. Get over it.
Prema stop referring to Americans as an vague ‘they.’
me too, every religion has lobbying group, so why not Atheists. Atheists make up 15% of the US Population, which I would say is significant.
shhh. we athiests are a secret cabal that controls US foreign policy with our neocon (strauss, bloom, wolfowitz) agenda. not to metion the world bank and imf and 3/4 of the major investment houses. we use religion to sedate the masses although marx almost blew our cover. sometimes we appear to be religious, as machiavelli suggested, in order to gain the goodwill of the people. this is the last i’ll speak of this.
i forgot, we control the fed reserve too. since that is only quasi governmental, allen used to get a little uppity and brag about his athieism–not to mention, objectivism–in public. me? i think its better to keep a low profile lest the savages get restless or figure out there is no god and we’ll no loinger be able to control them.
we all know which way intersts rate are going in advance too.
Nope, that’s the Freemasons.
Well, this is very common here because the religions that are top of mind are the Abrahamic religions of the book.
but do we have pboc,boj and ecb under control?
Camille,Yes but the enemy has no concept of civil liberties. Are you saying the talib and al-qaeda did not get the treatment it deserved? You ever think that the reason you and I can spend an evening at the mall or go to any public place in safety is because a U.S agent obtain information about a possible plot from a fanatic?
The destruction of the taliban so fast surprised even them as they always envisioned repeating their success with the soviet army, but america’s technology proved otherwise. Where the US fucked was up was stationing troops in the area, It should have just left! What America is trying to repeat here is its success with Japan post WW II, but atleast the Japanese were a civilized enemy. Here you’re dealing with rabid animals.
I really don’t believe Giuliani will be able to pull in enough folks to get by. Famous last words, perhaps? 🙂 Seriously, every time that man opens his mouth in public he removes all doubt of how incredibly asinine he is. But also, he’s going to have a real hard time playing the “family values” card given his own infamy over his relationships.
Vikram, I hear you. My point in bringing up Clinton’s love of cruise missiles was not to say he was an amazing visionary in containing terror threats, it was to counter the assertion that Clinton did NOTHING. For all the people in countries who suffered because of his administration’s ridiculous foreign policy, his “nothing” certainly did a great deal of harm.
Sin, amen!
Sadaiyyapan, it’s because (in my opinion) American consciousness around religion has only gotten “big enough” to acknowledge “religions of the Book” — i.e., Christianity, Judaism, Islam.
Kesh, we’re not going to agree on the rationale or the tactics of this spectacle called the “war on terror.” I firmly believe that a country does not move towards “freedom” or “security” by undermining the foundations of its ethical philosophy and values. I don’t believe in pandering to the lowest common denominator, and I feel this entire PR campaign around the “war” has been exactly that. What goes today? Civil liberties, because “they” don’t have them? Then what? Citizenship? What next? Should we then sanitize or cull people who we think are “scary”? I know that sounds alarmist, but honestly, we are not that many steps away from buying into a fascist society. I’m just glad that the American public has finally come around to agreeing that this “war” has been a shit show.
Well. you demonstrate a far greater confidence about the American voter than is merited by his/her performance in 2004.
Unfortunately, it is not for the moral reasons, but because of the cost to America, in terms of lives and money. Which is why I don’t see myself cheering for the politicians who call for the war to end either. Because, somehow political discourse about the basic immoral choices that have been made – Guantanamo, wire tapping, needless and mindless killing of Iraqi civilians, torture, Abu Ghraib… (the list is long and depressing, and you can probably add in the rest) – does not seem to be important or necessary in the current climate. What is more important is proving some sort of loyalty to the flag and keeping Hispanics out.
What kind of Jean-Sartre-meets-Anais-Nin Paris in the 50s life do you lead?
The US did this after supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets, the country was basically left in shambles until the Taliban found it as a nice nesting place to grow their organisation, and those who felt betrayed by the US (for example UBL) turned their gaze on them, or at least found an enemy that’s an easy sell to the silent majority.
I watched yesterday’s “Republican” debate. I think that is the advantage of being a “mono-religious” society. (eventhough the different denominations of Christianity are called as different religions). that helps Mitt Romney to claim , I believe in what you all believe. 🙂
I can’t imagine a similar scenario in India. America is more like Pakistan in this sense where Nawaz Sharif / Imran / Benazir / Musharaaf can make similar claims.
I think this is a “fair analysis”.
No way. Giuliani does not have a chance in hell of getting elected as President. I would be shocked if he even wins the primary, regardless of what the polls are saying this far out. In fact, were I a betting man and had to choose which mayor or New York would make it further in this election cycle I would put all my money on Bloomberg. He’s already set aside $1 Billion (with a “b”) of his ~$5 Billion private fortune for an independent candidacy. Unlike Giuliani and the rest of the fear mongers Bloomberg takes a different attitude:
What will finally make this election interesting is when the serious third party candidates announce. Hagel also falls into this boat as does (potentially) Al Gore.
I agree. There’s far too much noise right now in the Iowa futures market to make meaningful states. The Dems looks much more like a two-horse race. Although, I’d love for Al Gore to throw his hat in the ring. It breaks my heart that he’s the best president we’ve never had (at least on ability, who knows if he can execute).
Thats not how the men who founded the American Republic and wrote its secular Constitution saw it. Most of the prominent ones amongst them would not pass the belief test that the Republicans (and even the Democrats implicitly) require today. The Constitution they wrote says that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”.
The opinion polls consistently reveal that over 25% of americans believe in reincarnation, which is a belief associated with the eastern not the abrahamic religions. Another 10% or so are non-spiritual/atheist/agnostic. Thats more than a third of americans who are non-believers in christianity. Who represents them?
And if you examine further you will find that the proportion of non-believers is significantly higher among the most educated and the most productive americans: scientists, self-made billionaires etc. More than 90% of the members of the American Academy of Sciences are non-believers for example. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are atheists. Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison (of Oracle) are buddhists. And so on.
circus in jungle (#40), I meant to say “fear mongering and patriotic chest beating are NOT unique to the US”. Late night blogging.
Think again. According to this article from The American Conservative Giuliani has the evangelicals, neocons and even the media behind him:
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_04/article2.html
“Support for former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani among the Religious Right and particularly among evangelicals is a surprising development in American political culture.”
“For a while it seemed that Giuliani’s social positions—which are generally garden-variety leftist on abortion, gay marriage, and amnesty for illegal immigrants—plus his publicized dalliances, two failed marriages, and the attacks on his lack of paternal sense of responsibility made by his son would end the Religious Right’s love affair with the candidate. But this has not been the case.”
“A number of Giuliani’s fans in the Fourth Estate, such as Cal Thomas, Richard Brookhiser, and the editorial writers for the neoconservative New York Post, have revealed some of the reasons for the Religious Right’s attachment. Religious Protestants have come to view the issues that Giuliani has emphasized, “national security†and “fighting terror,†as more crucial than those family issues they stressed in the past.”
“When a Republican friend announced that the Democratic media have already arranged for Hillary’s coronation, my wife’s annoyed response was “that’s all nonsense. They hate Hillary. It’s Rudy they love.†I would have to agree. On television, Hillary is made to look inept and shrewish. Rudy, by contrast, comes across as bold, decisive, and virile. And this may have to do with how the candidates are presented at least as much as with what they say. Whatever sexual and family baggage is attached to Rudy is not something that the media has recently chosen to highlight. One exasperated right-of-center columnist, Cliff Kincaid, has complained, “Fox news has already crowned Giuliani†even before the primaries have begun.”
“And the Religious Right is leading the parade. To some extent it reflects the views of the American conservative media, which is almost without exception dominated by neoconservative spokespersons. Giuliani is well-liked in this group because of his strong identification with the Israeli hard right and because he tried to throw Yassir Arafat, then head of the PLO, out of New York City. He has also zealously endorsed the war in Iraq, an undertaking in which the neoconservatives have a deep and obvious investment.”
“it must be stressed that the issue that has come to trump all other evangelical concerns is fighting the war on terror……From the evangelical perspective, this confrontation with terror is so intertwined with other issues that it serves as a kind of shorthand. Israel, Zionism, and the glorification of American democracy as a world model are all at least implicit in the evangelical conception of the struggle against terror—one that Giuliani is imagined to be able to lead better than any other presidential contender.”
“Evangelicals believe in exactly the kind of war that the Bush administration has described in its idealistic moments. It is also the one that Giuliani, as the protector of our “security†and the denier of “moral equivalency,†represents more than any other presidential candidate.”
“Now that powerful segment of the American electorate has concluded that this social liberal from New York will continue a missionizing venture that they understand as an extension of Wilson’s “war to end all wars†and “make the world safe for democracy.†Giuliani’s evangelical supporters do not view him in the same way the liberal media does—that is, as a social liberal who will push his party leftward. Given the erosion of the evangelical consensus on once hardcore moral issues, a tendency that religious sociologist Mark Shibley has studied in depth, Giuliani’s stands on abortion or gay marriage may matter less and less to many evangelical voters. Like Mike Gerson, these Republicans are focused on foreign-policy goals—and they seem to have found their candidate in the maritally challenged former mayor.“
No way. Giuliani does not have a chance in hell of getting elected as President. I would be shocked if he even wins the primary, regardless of what the polls are saying this far out.
Abhi: I wont rule Giuliani out. Super Tuesday next year, will hold Alabama (48), Arizona (53), Arkansas (34), California (173), Delaware (18), Georgia (72), Illinois (70), Michigan (61), Missouri (58), New Jersey (52), New Mexico (32), New York (101), North Dakota (26), Oklahoma (42), Tennessee (55), Utah (36), West Virginia.
If Giuliani can come out swinging in the blue states especially in the big ones like California and New York/New Jersey while the rest of the candidates split up the other states, Giuliani might come out on top. He’s already planning on sitting out Iowa, which is a smart move probably because the Iowa caucus voters are true believers (Pat Roberton beat Bush here!) Florida has also moved up its primary to January though its a closed primary so the Jewish Democrats who tend to like him wont be able to vote for him. I think if Giuliani can finish in the top 2 in New Hampshire and Florida, he will have enough momentum to sweep CA/NY/NJ while split the moderate vote with McCain in other states. That might be enough for Giuliani to get the nomination.
I think the surprising support for Giuliani among the religious rights says more about the religious right than about Giuliani, i.e. Ralph Reed and his ilk are just as hypocritical as anyone else playing the political game.
Also, does anyone think that all this talk is almost obscenely early, considering we’re only in June of 2007? By the time the actual primaries roll around, the electorate (the part of it that’s paying any attention) will be completely jaded by this whole process.
Never misunderestimate the power and attractiveness of manichaean paranoia. Even if it foams at the mouth instead of jumbling diction.
On the other hand those lightning strikes when Giuliani was asked about his support for abortion rights in the last debate may give second thoughts to some superstitious christians 🙂
He is the least overtly christian of all the candidates and if it is exposed that he is a closet pagan or something then the evangelical support will evaporate.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrudy065244085jun06,0,2608954.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines
“Alone among the top-tier candidates for president, Rudolph Giuliani is refusing to discuss whether and how often he goes to church – a stance that could complicate his efforts to win over religious conservatives at the heart of the Republican base, political analysts said.
In a survey of presidential candidates in both parties, Giuliani, a Catholic, was the only one to refuse to say how often he attended services, and he also declined to name a church of which he is a member.
“The mayor’s personal relationship with God is private and between him and God,” the campaign wrote in reply to the survey, according to The Associated Press, which polled the candidates.”
“Giuliani’s religious beliefs already have become an issue in the campaign. The ex-mayor gave the same answer after comments by Pope Benedict XVI suggested that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights – such as Giuliani – had broken their bonds with the church and might no longer be eligible to receive Holy Communion.
Then this week, a Catholic bishop in Rhode Island ripped Giuliani’s abortion rights stance, calling it hypocritical and comparing him to Pontius Pilate, who turned over Jesus Christ to be crucified.”
Then this week, a Catholic bishop in Rhode Island ripped Giuliani’s abortion rights stance, calling it hypocritical and comparing him to Pontius Pilate, who turned over Jesus Christ to be crucified.
Wow, these fundamentalists are tireless. Reading the articles posted above, I get the feeling the only way Giuliani can sell himself effectively is by milking his tough guy credentials. At least he’s standing up to the church.
Ponniyin Selvan
More than one commentator has noted that USA, Pakistan and Israel are all “ideological states” of a certain kind. I think a similar thinking lies behind Huntington’s Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity , which posits a kind of christian protestantism as part of core US culture.
Rahul: Although, I’d love for Al Gore to throw his hat in the ring. It breaks my heart that he’s the best president we’ve never had (at least on ability, who knows if he can execute).
–> Gore is a bad choice. That he can make good money and a successful documentary doesnt make him a good leader. Good business sense maybe. Arent we suffering enough from a president who stressed his business credentials ?
Kesh: “The destruction of the taliban so fast surprised even them as they always envisioned repeating their success with the soviet army, but america’s technology proved otherwise. Where the US fucked was up was stationing troops in the area, It should have just left! What America is trying to repeat here is its success with Japan post WW II, but atleast the Japanese were a civilized enemy. Here you’re dealing with rabid animals.”
–> How many historical inaccuracies can you pack into one post ? 1. Japanese soldiers werent a civilized enemy as you characterize them(Ask the chinese). They were pliant after WWII but I dont think they were civilized enemies. 2. Taliban wasnt there in Afghanistan (Mujahideen was) when soviet army turned tail and ran. They were a student movement arising out of the chaos of post soviet afghanistan.
Sin: There are regions and parts of the world (including my own) that simply aren’t ready for democracy, and what they need are benevolent despots. My favourite take on the whole democracy thing comes from that virtuoso of literature, Terry Pratchett, who describes the “Tyrant” of a fictional country as having brought about the sort of democracy that is “one man, one vote. He was the man, he was the vote”.
–> If you have time and the inclination, please try reading J curve by Ian Bremmer. The book analyzes why some societies remain open(i.e., democratic, example US, India), why some stay closed(i.e., autocratic, example saudi arabia, north korea) and why some keep jumping between the two(example russia).
It’s funny that the American Conservative is clamoring behind Giuliani. He has been totally hammered in a number of other mainstream conservative rags. I’m with Abhi on this one. I would be really surprised if he wins the primary. I think he’s a candidate who people like for his “star appeal,” but he is neither charismatic nor congenial enough to keep it going. While he’s really trying to play up the “hero of 9/11” bit, I think people are getting tired of politicians’ use of 9/11 to their political gain. I have no idea what the sentiment is in the historically “red” states, so I’m sure my view is totally skewed. Also, I hear you, Rahul, on that idiocy is not a factor, but Giuliani’s track record and rhetoric on national/international issues is even more full of holes than Bush II’s was when he was on the campaign trail.
Al Chutiya, I would be really surprised if Giuliani could pull down California. I would really expect California to go to John McCain.
It’s still early. I feel like the people who are popular now are rarely the folks who come out later. If you had asked me, in 2004, if I thought John Kerry was going to take the Democratic nomination at this time I would have said no then, too. There’s still a lot of time to see how folks crash and burn.
I know, Rahul 🙁
Prema, and yet the number of atheists, non-Christians, etc., elected to national office is remarkably low.
Also, I missed reading this the first time, but this is sickening. This is also how folks are able to dehumanize others to the point of justifying things that are traditionally seen as horrific and inappropriate, e.g. torture, rape, mass civilian killing, genocide, etc., etc.
I would love a Bloomberg idependant run. That would seal Democat victory. (I am not a de-facto dem. support BTW)
It would be exact 1992 scenario with Ross Perot generating buzz and deviding the Republican vote and ending up denying Daddy Bush his second term.
All the NY and CT Republicans (read Business Republicans not xenophobia Republicans) may find a lot of like about Bloomberg.
Al Chutiya, I would be really surprised if Giuliani could pull down California. I would really expect California to go to John McCain.
One would think so. California is not NY/NJ for Giuliani but Guiliani is still pretty popular in California. If current trends hold, Giuliani will defeat McCain in California. The field poll from April 4 has Giuliani leading McCain 36% to 24% (Of course this is very early and polls will change). McCain is rather strong in Southern California but that might change if the immigration bill passes and McCain is perceived as the architect/traitor. I dont have the numbers on the attitude of the Southern Californian Republicans on immigration but McCain might lose a lot of support in the primary republicans on this immigration bill.
Al Chutiya,
Southern Cal Republicans (who are not Latino) are like Arizona Republicans when it comes to immigration (i.e. hugely xenophobic, want it cut off, and are totally ok with the Minute Men riding along the Southern border doing their vigilante thing). Latin@ Republicans are a bit more split on immigration, although not as hugely as one would think. I think, even if the immigration bill goes through, that folks are not necessarily going to nail McCain to the wall for it. Also (and I am totally making this up), I feel like Californian voting opinion changes FAST right before elections. We’re also incredibly forgetful. What happens today may not end up really mattering 9 months from now. It’s also weird because the demographics of the state don’t match the demographics of the voting population, etc., etc.
This has nothing to do with why I think he will make a good leader. Gore is smart, understands issues, works hard, and has good ideas.
What Americans think about atheists for office.
What’s all this? What did Giuliani’s son say?
A reasonable summary. I’m not sure I want to judge Giuliani by his family life any more so than I wanted to Clinton. I think there’s enough evidence of Giuliani’s take-no-prisoners attitude from his public policy.